Seriously? The guy is so wrong that he forgot about 60,000 kcals in an experiment about counting calories?!? Dude, he's a professor of human nutrition. If there's anything this guy should know, it's counting calories.

I think you're referring to HIS calorie counting but the way you phrased it (that I suspect Valtor was commenting on) was that it sounded like it was an indictment of the calorie hypothesis period, which is a completely different topic.

Unfortunately my respect for the knowledge (and logical thinking) of nutrition majors is actually so low at this point that it doesn't even surprise me. It is just tragic reading the stuff in modern textbooks during the day (part of my job).

PJ

Ugh. This article pisses me off. It's bad science.

First, in a healthy person with no insulin resistance, a year of Twinkies is no big deal.

Do that for 10 years and guess who'll be on this board as a new member?

Time + Sugar= Diabetes, Obesity, Insulin Resistance, High Blood Pressure etc....

A study group of 1 is meaningless. Check out the Fat Head blog today for another deconstruction of science saying sugar is healthy.

This whole thing is junk science, which I guess, what can you expect from scientists eating junk food?

F

Look, this is not science. The guy was only trying to make a point. That's all there is to it.

I don't think we can rule out the possibility that there's a "metabolic advantage" to a diet of Twinkies and L'il Debbie cakes. The diet is so bloody ridiculous that I doubt it's been seriously studied. (Not a diet including these things, a diet based on these things.) Maybe these foods are addictive. Maybe there's "always room for dessert." But maybe having dessert first is different. The world is a weird place.

I don't get why Haub thinks he can do in 10 weeks what takes the rest of us years to do.

The negative effects of sugar take more than 2 1/2 months to show up.

He lost weight, but this diet will hurt him in the long run if he keeps it up.

Also WTF was he eating before that he lost weight on this much sugar?

I am so irritated by the whole thing. Scientific stupidity at its best.

F

I would like to understand how anyone makes a valid point on nutrition without valid science to back it up?

F

There's a reason he's in Kansas.

Ahem.

Says someone whose been there with a stepparent as a professor at KSU.

Frankly, if Haub has any brains at all, he is mortified that this has hit the media (although I assume he meant to get some attention, I doubt he considered the backlash). There's better science out there, a lot better science, and those scientists doing the better science have a say in hiring decisions.

Hope Haub has tenure.

F

I would have been more interested in a "cheesecake diet, or maybe an "all-you-can-eat-ice-cream diet"

Well, hmmn. Normally, eating sugar/carbs just makes the insulin and appetite leap into the air. Who knows? Maybe eating that way but then abruptly STOPPING eating -- not doing the natural overeating in calories that would normally result from that -- has some interesting effect in the body.

I think if he was trying to just show students that for him at least, calories mattered first and foremost -- that he could eat the worst things but if the calories were low, he'd lose weight or not gain it -- then it was sufficient for what he was trying to do.

It's just that nobody ever argued that sort of thing wouldn't work for him. I know men who live on pizza and beer and they're skinny and they have tons of energy -- because all their food-energy, is released from the body as energy to burn.

When I was young I ate a truly staggering amount of sugar. People used to gape about it and insist I would get fat or get zits, but I just laughed at them. My family insisted in my early to mid 20's I'd fatten out like most of 'em did, but I was athletic and just laughed at them.

Apparently there is a 'critical mass' somewhere in genetics. I'm not real surprised his 10 week plan didn't quite reach that trigger.

PJ

The science is already there. He is not trying to add to it. He is just making a point, mainly for his students, that "healthy eating" is a term that is easily misused. The take home message is that you can eat whatever you want if your protein and micronutrient intake is adequate and you do not consume more calories than you need.

Of course, figuring out how much calorie you need in any contexts is the hard part. A trial and error method is the most practical one for most people.

Then you are left to find a way of eating that makes it not too hard to keep your calorie intake adequate without always having to worry about it. Which brings us back to low-carb for most people here.

Yes, and his consumption is DOCUMENTED. Maybe that's his sinister plan all along...

Hear hear. Couldn't have said it better myself.

--Melissa

A study I'd like to see: A group of people with stable weight, at a known daily caloric level, established by observation rather than by formula. Divide into subgroups. Holding calories constant, switch one group to lowcarb, high fat, and the other group to high cab low fat. The third group continues on "normal" mixed diet, as a control. The main thing is to keep all three groups at the caloric level that kept them at stable weight before.

Monitor changes, if any, in weight, body composition, activity levels, reported appetite and satiety, lab results, body temp, and so on.

Ubizmo

Maybe this one: http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v...by2007516a.html

More like that here: http://www.nmsociety.org/LowCarbResearch.aspx

EDIT: I'm not sure that protein intake was the same in both groups, which would make the results moot IMHO.